ML20078K703
| ML20078K703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078K702 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9411230313 | |
| Download: ML20078K703 (2) | |
Text
._
pRRfCu ft UNITED STATES i
4, e 7
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
.f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENOMENT NO. 182 10 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY THE WESTERN MASSACHUSETlS ELECTRIC COMPANY MILLSTORE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 2 i
ROCKET NO._51-)lfi 1.0 INTR 00VCTION By letter dated September 1,1994, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) submitted a request for a change to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested change would change Section 5.4.2 of the TS to reflect a change in the total reactor coolant system (RCS) volume.
2.0 EVALVATION The steam generators at Millstone Unit No. 2 were replaced during the 1992 refueling outage. This modification resulted in a slight change in the total RCS water and steam volume. The total RCS water and steam volume has been determined to be 10,981 cubic feet, based on nominal conditions with the configuration of the new steam generators, zero tube plugging, and control element assemblies withdrawn.
The proposed change would simply change the volume represented in Section 5.4.2 of the TS. The steam generator replacements were evaluated as a plant design change request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
The licensee determined that the replacement of the steam generators did not involve an unreviewed safety question. The NRC staff conducted several inspections and reviews regarding the steam generator replacement project and agreed with the licensee that the modification did not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
Based on the above determinations and the minor significance of the slight change in RCS volume, the staff has determined the proposed change to the TS to be acceptable.
941123o333 94110G PDR ADOCK 05000336 PDR i
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 DLV1RONMENTAL CONSIDERATIOJ The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been-no public comment on such finding (59 FR 49432). Accordingly, the amendmeat meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR St.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: G. Vissing Date: Novenber 8, 1994